Italy is the country of saints, poets and explorers. After its recent election, it is also the country that turns buffoons into politicians and politicians into buffoons. But Italy is not, as someone wrote after the stunning electoral success of former comedian Beppe Grillo, the country that has finalized the triumph of the social media over conventional media. Quite the contrary.

Many have predicted the fading influence of conventional media and the increasing power of social media. The stunning results achieved by Grillo have been hailed by some as the final proof of this theory. Even the New York Times wrote this week that Grillo’s “biggest edge . . . has been exploiting the power of the Internet and social media to get his message out. When he started a political blog in 2005, people logged in by the millions to engage in debate.”

It’s true that Grillo used his blog since 2005 to woo support, but he didn’t accomplish meaningful results in many elections. There’s no doubt that social media gave Grillo the initial push to start his organization, but he gained real traction only after Italy had experienced years of economic problems, financial scandals, social imbalance, bunga-bunga parties and, most of all, the inability of conventional politicians to find solutions. And Grillo rose to the top only when conventional media gave him daily coverage. It is not a coincidence that the other non-loser of the Italian vote was Silvio Berlusconi. Considered politically dead only two months earlier, Berlusconi heavily used conventional media for his comeback after being systematically attacked through social media networks for months.

Why is it, as someone in Germany put it, that “two clowns” are now holding the future of Italy and perhaps of Europe in their hands?

I monitored the last few weeks of the Italian campaign, and noticed three important elements.

Berlusconi and Grillo spoke the language of the people. Others spoke the language of politicians.

Berlusconi and Grillo spoke to voters to deliver a message. Others spoke about Berlusconi and Grillo and how bad they were.

Berlusconi and Grillo were disciplined in delivering the message. Other had chaos or no message at all.

Grillo and Berlusconi were accused of not being credible and selling hot air but they knew that the two main elements widely spread throughout the Italian electorate were concern over the present government’s substantial tax increases, and hatred for corrupt politicians. Berlusconi adopted the first message, lower taxes; Grillo adopted the second: let’s get rid of crooked politicians.

Berlusconi swamped conventional media with dozens of controversial interviews. At times, he was more of a comedian than Grillo, but his message was always loud, clear, and focused like a laser beam: I will reduce your taxes.

Grillo was even more outrageous than Berlusconi and, arguably, even smarter. While the former prime minister participated in dozens of debates and interviews even with journalists who had attacked him for years, Grillo refused all interview requests from conventional Italian media. This doesn’t mean he didn’t receive national coverage. Quite the contrary, he was on every newscast and his speeches were broadcast on live national TV. His message reached Italians through conventional media and it was also uncontaminated by debates. While other leaders were badmouthing each other in debates, Grillo was never debated or directly challenged. In the last few weeks of the campaign, he engulfed the airwaves with his message, penetrating deep into Italian discontent.

While Berlusconi and Grillo were addressing Italians in provocative but effective terms and promoting their message, their main opponent, the centre-left coalition lead by Pierluigi Bersani, was all over the map. The only message it had was “Berlusconi is a crook, Grillo is not credible.” In every newscast or national newspaper, Bersani and friends became an addendum to the main reporting about Grillo and Berlusconi.

The Italian vote may have produced unconventional results, but those results were born out of very traditional elements of the conventional system — the need to have a message and the ability to promote that message through the conventional media.

There is no doubt that in the future the role of social media will increase, but for now its primary function is to raise money and to build an organization, as we learned from Obama’s campaign in the U.S. These are very important aspects of a successful campaign. But to win, you need to promote the message, and that can still only be done effectively through conventional media.

Angelo Persichilli is a former political columnist for the Toronto Star.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.